It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

page: 189
377
<< 186  187  188    190  191  192 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by AgentSmith
 


In all fairness, it seems he had the units correct. (cm^2 s st)^-1 = 1/(cm^2 s st) = 1/cm^2 1/s 1/st = cm^-2 s^-1 st^-1

But for the rest, I agree that he is pretty much clueless. But it is somehow still amusing to read, so every now and then I open up this thread
.




posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 06:02 PM
link   
Apologies if I did make a mistake, I know it's supposed to be
particles per cm squared per second per steradian

I don't recognise it as being correct the way he wrote it, but as there are various ways of expressing the same thing in maths I can't say for sure, I only know what I know - not what I don't (though I'm always learning!)..



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by thesneakiod

I don't have any problem with people debating a well worn conspiracy. The moon hoax is more of a good story to me, and personally i come here to be enlightened and be entertained, certainly not to read a near two hundred page thread of a small group of posters ripping in to someone because they don't believe what you do.

While some brilliant and thorough material has been brought to our attention by you guys, I just reckon you have insulted foosm relentlessly by doing so.


You seem to be convinced we're persecuting Foos, can you give us examples of us insulting foos "relentlessly"?


And why drag up a quote of mine from another thread? What relevance does that have here? If I remember rightly, it was referring to somebody promoting alien disclosure (i think).


You were the one who first went outside the thread:


It's funny that the same people that attack outlandish theories are also posting on other threads on here using the same bile.


Pot, kettle and all that.....


I haven't even said anything about JW's videos.


And?



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 08:01 PM
link   
reply to post by thesneakiod
 


The reason FooSM and others receive a rhetorical ass pounding here, is because they lack intellectual honesty, and that drives serious people, (you know, Thinkers) absolutely bonkers.
An honest person seeking to find the truth of the matter, will concede when he's been shown to be in error.
An honest person will build a case by virtue of his own study of the facts and will pursue the truth with rigor and integrity - and yes, even a modicum of humility.
An honest person does not rely on the plagiarism of other people's ideas and the use of their YouTube videos to make specious, unfounded and patently false claims; often failing even to understand the premise of the originator's ideas.
An honest person does not pretend to have knowledge he does not actually possess.
An honest person will ask questions of others when the limits of his knowledge prevent further progress into a particular area of research. e.g. radiation.

If you only knew the disciplined restraint being exercised here...



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 09:10 PM
link   
I used to think people were being harsh to FoosM perhaps till I actually interacted with the person.

Dragnet, FoosM, PPK ... as soon as you disagree with them they assume you're some kind of NSA agent or something out to get them and the
etc starts ...

It's only in the last ten pages FoosM has suddenly stopped being so taunting etc .... You can check way back at the start of the thread when FoosM started posting if clairfication is needed. But really it doesn't matter.



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 01:49 AM
link   
In a forlorn attempt to drag things back on topic... JW and his fellow deniers oft refer to Jack White, as one of the shining lights (forgive me while I vomit) of the denial brigade. I wonder if Jack had a son...

Anyway... Jack and his good friend James H Fetzer hang out at the Education Forum, basically fighting the same 'black knight' fight as has been carried out here.

May I give Jack a small amount of credit - he has the guts to appear at a forum, unlike the cowardly subject of this thread.

Anyway, Jack W and James F were arguing at length, using an image of 'moon rover tracks in regolith'. But as soon as it was posted, the skeptics over there questioned its origin and asked Jack and Jim to cite the image.

Jack refused to gve a source, and smarmily, with the usual implication that the skeptics were poor researchers and it was their problem
, they were told to go find it themselves.

.. So.... they did. Which hasn't ended in a good result for White and Fetzler...

Because that image has now been identified as a stock photo of tracks made by a normal, earthly four wheel drive. It was taken in the Sahara, and had absolutely nothing to do with Apollo. (The photographer had titled this stock photo, quite cleverly... "Marks of a Moon Rover". And that was the ENTIRE basis upon which Jack and Jim then used it in their debate. Good enuf for them. Obviously an Apollo image.
)

So there you have the research ability and integrity of these folks. Read the page ((link below) - and note how Fetzer tells off the forum for being incompetent, and that it's their fault...

I can't believe the incompetence of some of those posting here, who want to make a big deal [..of the situation]


Ever notice how a denier cannot possibly admit their errors? Notice that behaviour with some other folk here? Here's Jack White's initial comment - note he still tries to weasel out of it:

I do not claim 100 percent accuracy. [
]
But it is still odd that a photographer would sell the same image to two different stock
photo agencies with two DIFFERENT captions.

What??? As a photographer myself, I can tell you that it is not in the remotest sense 'odd'. And what the ___ does the title of the image have to do with anything? Those are the slimy words of a lying fool grasping at straws to try to hold onto a semblance of credibility. Credibility long gone...

Here's the thread:
educationforum.ipbhost.com...
It's still unfolding... Does anyone think there will be a genuine apology and FULL EXPLANATION from these charlatans? The sort of charlatans that JW uses as his source? It's no wonder that his stuff is a bad as it is - he follows in the footsteps of the worst kind of snake oil salesmen.

Jack White and James H Fetzer - SHAME ON YOU.



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 03:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM


Flux levels OVER 8 are not dangerous.... right. So anything OVER 8, like, 100, 1.000, 10.000 is not dangerous.
You accept whatever answer from someone else as long as they believe Apollo happened.
Whatever. thanks for the non-answer.



You do understand that when you try and define 'flux levels over 8' as a major SPE it means anything over 8 is major? I dont think you get this point.

Thats the disagreement with you. No one has said that high flux values are not major as you have implied. However no one in their right mind would define a major SPE in the manner you have if the purpose of the definition is to describe events that pose a danger to astronauts/humans/earth.

And still no data, what a surprise...



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 03:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55


Maybe because it took them 4 minutes to set up the flag. That's right ... 4 minutes.

Then in the next one minute Armstrong only took 2 photos of buzz beside it.

Surely in 1 minute you could rattle off quite a few just to make sure at least 1 worked out.
But to only take 2 and hope those 2 turned out ok ? Remember, the camera had a motorized wind function. Kinda easy to take more in rapid fire succession.

So out of 1408 photos, they only took 2 of buzz beside the flag. Not likely or probable considering it was to be the defining photo of Apollo 11. Shenanigans.



ppk, think of it from the point of view of a photographer (the reason you call shenanigans is because you want it to show something its not).

If i am a photographer (note, i am not a professional photographer), there are different ways i deal with events. If it is a single relatively static event with one or a couple of people, i would snap off two photos in succession. One of the two photos should then be a good one.

The only time i would be snapping off more than a couple of photos is if the event is dynamic, or there are lots of people involved. In that case i'd be snapping off a few more in quick succession because the chances of a good photo are diminished.

I recently attended a wedding and the professional photographer did exactly the same. For relatively static moments he would snap off two photos in succession, for more dynamic shots it would be more. This is a guy whose livelihood depends on taking great photos.

Think of how you would take photos as a tourist, its basically the same concept. Again of static objects, or events with little movement, it would be one or two photos only.

Lastly, the astronauts had a limited supply of film which would have limited the number of 'touristy' shots they took. Given time criticality, film available and what you would expect from someone at least partially trained in photography i dont see any issue here.


edit on 10-9-2010 by zvezdar because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by zvezdar

Originally posted by ppk55


Maybe because it took them 4 minutes to set up the flag. That's right ... 4 minutes.

Then in the next one minute Armstrong only took 2 photos of buzz beside it.

Surely in 1 minute you could rattle off quite a few just to make sure at least 1 worked out.
But to only take 2 and hope those 2 turned out ok ? Remember, the camera had a motorized wind function. Kinda easy to take more in rapid fire succession.

So out of 1408 photos, they only took 2 of buzz beside the flag. Not likely or probable considering it was to be the defining photo of Apollo 11. Shenanigans.



ppk, think of it from the point of view of a photographer (the reason you call shenanigans is because you want it to show something its not).

If i am a photographer (note, i am not a professional photographer), there are different ways i deal with events. If it is a single relatively static event with one or a couple of people, i would snap off two photos in succession. One of the two photos should then be a good one.

The only time i would be snapping off more than a couple of photos is if the event is dynamic, or there are lots of people involved. In that case i'd be snapping off a few more in quick succession because the chances of a good photo are diminished.

I recently attended a wedding and the professional photographer did exactly the same. For relatively static moments he would snap off two photos in succession, for more dynamic shots it would be more. This is a guy whose livelihood depends on taking great photos.

Think of how you would take photos as a tourist, its basically the same concept. Again of static objects, or events with little movement, it would be one or two photos only.

Lastly, the astronauts had a limited supply of film which would have limited the number of 'touristy' shots they took. Given time criticality, film available and what you would expect from someone at least partially trained in photography i dont see any issue here.


edit on 10-9-2010 by zvezdar because: (no reason given)



Im sure in that wedding event both the groom and bride were photographed, right?
Is it not true that there is no picture of Armstrong next to flag?
I'm just asking, I'm sure myself. But I recall only seeing one of the astronauts.

Secondly, for sure the astronauts were not taking tourist shots, but they were going from a script (or a plan, for those who are paranoid to any "film" references).
At any rate, it seems like Armstrong was the main photographer.
What happened to Buzz's camera, why didnt he pose Armstrong?

And that brings me to the next question... I dont recall if I had brought it up before,
but incase I didnt:

How many Hasselblad cameras were returned back to Earth?
And if they were returned, were are they?


I recall JW asking in one of his videos the question where J. Windley got his Camera




posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Immediately after landing on the Moon, astronauts Armstrong and Aldrin prepared the lunar module for liftoff as a contingency measure. Photographs were taken through the LM window during this activity and again later on the surface. The photographs reproduced in this series about surface photography show detail in specific areas like (1) Surface Activities, (2) Sample Documentation, and (3) Stereoscopic Surface Photography.

The astronauts carried out the planned sequence of activities that included deployment of various science experiments, collection of a larger sample of lunar surface material and two core-tube samples. Most of these activities were documented by 70-mm still cameras.

Lunar and Planetary Institute

I suspect that this means that Armstrong had the regular camera and Aldrin had the special stereoscopic one... not much good for tourist photography. Also note that there was an hierarchy of priorities. "Tourist photos" seems to be low on the list.

I'm not sure how many cameras were returned from the Moon. Does it matter? Presumably they are all in museums, like the one in the Smithsonian:
National Air and Space Museum



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 



I'm not sure how many cameras were returned from the Moon.


I don't have the exact numbers, from each mission, at hand. Memory tells me that, generally, the Hassies that were in the CM came home with it. The ones taken to the surface, are still there. Tossed out to save weight for the ascent.

On the later "J' missions there was a camera in the SIM bay of the Service Module. Of course, that (the SM) burned up in Earth's atmosphere, after being abandonded prior to entry. Along with all the equipment. Film was retrieved during the TEI coast, coming home, and carried in the CM to splashdown.



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by DJW001
 



I'm not sure how many cameras were returned from the Moon.


I don't have the exact numbers, from each mission, at hand. Memory tells me that, generally, the Hassies that were in the CM came home with it. The ones taken to the surface, are still there. Tossed out to save weight for the ascent.

On the later "J' missions there was a camera in the SIM bay of the Service Module. Of course, that (the SM) burned up in Earth's atmosphere, after being abandonded prior to entry. Along with all the equipment. Film was retrieved during the TEI coast, coming home, and carried in the CM to splashdown.



There was at least one that was taken back.
Popular convention has been that all surface used Hassels stayed behind.



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Im sure in that wedding event both the groom and bride were photographed, right?

Yes, a wedding is EXACTLY the same as a mission to the Moon. Like those constumes - let's face it, you can't tell the difference between a bride and groom, just like them astronaut thingies.



Is it not true that there is no picture of Armstrong next to flag?

No, it's not untrue. How many more negatives would you like? Actually the correct answer is that it depends on what sort of image you include. How come you don't know this??? It's REALLY basic stuff, very well known to any real Apollo researcher. Oh, that's right....

There was only one 'normal' Hassleblad taken to the surface on A11. Armstrong was the better photographer, and mission planners would not want the added complication and time wasting of swapping the camera back and forth, especially given that their hands were usually occupied doing other things. Try applying common sense.


I'm just asking, I'm sure myself.

So why don't you do a little research before you ask? All you are after is more stuff to clutter up the thread.

HOW is this in any way relevant???


But I recall only seeing one of the astronauts.

Well, your recollection ability is proven, so that would be good enough for anyone...


Secondly, for sure the astronauts were not taking tourist shots, but they were going from a script (or a plan, for those who are paranoid to any "film" references).

This was the first mission, with plenty of unknowns. The script was flexible enough to allow the astronauts to do what worked best. They did. But I'm sure it would all have gone better if you were in charge...


What happened to Buzz's camera, why didnt he pose Armstrong?

And which camera would that have been, exactly?


And that brings me to the next question... I dont recall if I had brought it up before

Your selective memory is notable - when you have a problem with one topic, you forget all about stuff you brought up before, and raise it again to try to escape...


How many Hasselblad cameras were returned back to Earth?

None (of the *lunar surface* H's). But there is some dispute about this due to a comment made by one astronaut in a later mission, during preparations for LM ascent. The comment indicated he was going to bring a camera (but did he mean the Hasselblad?) home. But it is a vague reference, and according to all sources (including Hasselblad) none of the *lunar surface* H's were returned. All 12 that were taken to the lunar surface were left there, along with much other discarded and non-essential items, to allow the most possible lunar samples to be returned, with a decent safety margin, for ascent.

I would go look up the reference to that mission, but I can't see how it is relevant. If you think it is an important point, explain why, explain where the camera is, and explain how this adds to your claims of a hoax. Otherwise, stop changing the subject.




edit on 10-9-2010 by CHRLZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 05:57 PM
link   





See guys... all I tried to do was have normal conversation and my post gets dissected like a lab frog by a psychopath nerd. Comments are made about my grammar, memory, and who knows what else.

This is why people like J.W. dont bother coming to forums and refers to many Apollo defenders propagandists. He's not a coward, as some of you call him, (think about it, he uses his real name, doesn't hide where he lives, and anonymous posters call him a coward- whatever) he's smart enough to stay away from angry people who when confronted with facts love to go for the personal attacks.

Anyway, CHRLZ as usual you are wrong. A camera was taken back.
" It's REALLY basic stuff, very well known to any real Apollo researcher. Oh, that's right.... "

Yeah thats right. And no Im not going to provide any proof since you didn't provide any proof that all cameras were taken back. So you go do your homework first, expert in all things Apollo.



And while you are at it, we are still waiting for your space radiation tome that hopefully answers the lingering
questions about the shielding capabilities of the CM & LM windows, helmet visors, and magazine cases for the film.



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by zvezdar

Originally posted by FoosM


Flux levels OVER 8 are not dangerous.... right. So anything OVER 8, like, 100, 1.000, 10.000 is not dangerous.
You accept whatever answer from someone else as long as they believe Apollo happened.
Whatever. thanks for the non-answer.



You do understand that when you try and define 'flux levels over 8' as a major SPE it means anything over 8 is major? I dont think you get this point.

Thats the disagreement with you. No one has said that high flux values are not major as you have implied. However no one in their right mind would define a major SPE in the manner you have if the purpose of the definition is to describe events that pose a danger to astronauts/humans/earth.

And still no data, what a surprise...


Where did I state a life threatening SPE occurred during Apollo?
I've been clearly asking for the definition of a MAJOR SPE
because NASA has stated one has never occurred during APOLLO.

We can worry about how threatening the SPE was to Apollo during the next stage of the discussion.
All I want is to determine if NASA has lied about the occurrence of a Major SPE during Apollo.
I've kept this question open, so far nobody is willing to go out on a limb to prove it right or wrong.
And I wonder why. Its like people around here would be willing to sacrifice their kids to keep the reputation of NASA spotless.


These excursions into cislunar space placed the astronauts at risk of receiving life threatening radiation exposures if a large SPE were to occur. Fortunately, no major solar proton events occurred during these missions.

srag-nt.jsc.nasa.gov...

Did NASA lie?


The Jan. 20th proton storm was by some measures the biggest since 1989. It was particularly rich in high-speed protons packing more than 100 million electron volts (100 MeV) of energy. Such protons can burrow through 11 centimeters of water. A thin-skinned spacesuit would have offered little resistance... Surely, though, no astronaut is going to walk around on the Moon when there's a giant sunspot threatening to explode. "They're going to stay inside their spaceship (or habitat)," says Cucinotta.

science.nasa.gov...

Surely not, but somebody would have to warn them.... Apollo 12 & Apollo ???



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 

It has been explained time and time again that yes, NASA was aware of the risks of a major proton event. So were the astronauts, they didn't need their parents' permission to go on the missions. They were adults. Adults who were accustomed to and willing to take risks.

It has also been explained that the chance of a dangerous particle event occurring on any particular mission was very low. Yes, there were X-class flares during Apollo 12. All of those flares occurred in regions of the Sun which are not likely to produce a particle event in the Earth-Moon system. If there had been the landing may have been postponed or canceled. It wasn't.

Was there "a giant sunspot threatening to explode" at the time? Sounds like something you might want to be bird-dogging. Show us there was such a situation. Otherwise, it is reasonable to assume there was not because the landing occurred. Show us there was a dangerous particle event during the mission (or any mission), otherwise, it is reasonable to assume there was not because such events are known to be rare. You of course, want to assume there was. Your assumption means nothing unless you prove it to be true.


edit on 9/10/2010 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM


Where did I state a life threatening SPE occurred during Apollo?


OK i'll play your game..where did i make any mention of life-threatening SPE?



I've been clearly asking for the definition of a MAJOR SPE
because NASA has stated one has never occurred during APOLLO.


And you still dont understand that the word 'major' does not have a precise scientific definition. It depends upon the context in which you are discussing matters.


We can worry about how threatening the SPE was to Apollo during the next stage of the discussion.


Why? Whether an SPE was threatening is the only fact worth discussing.



All I want is to determine if NASA has lied about the occurrence of a Major SPE during Apollo.


As i posted, there is no precise scientific definition for 'major'. So you cant accomplish what you are trying to do.

Besides which, once again you are trying to trip people up on semantics (in fact, i submit that you are trying to deceive people with semantics). If you want to demonstrate that Apollo was a hoax because of excess radiation then you need to provide the data to back yourself up. Arguing whether a word is inaccurate is merely another distraction for you to try and fabricate evidence where there is none.

So, for the 35th time, where is your data? It is clear to me you have none, you have some data on low-level proton events (which are not dangerous to an astronaut) and are simply trying to find a way to say "AHA!! NASA LIED". Even though you know the data shows nothing that would put an astronaut in danger.



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
How many Hasselblad cameras were returned back to Earth?

I did cite Hasselblad - you have a better source? Clearly, NASA would not be believed by you, so who would?
Here's my Hassy source:
Hassleblad Apollo page

The 12 HEDC cameras used on the surface of the moon were left there; only the film magazines returned to earth.

So, over to you, FoosM. I've quoted and given my source, from what would have to be the second most credible organisation (after NASA) on that topic.

Now you give yours.


...my post gets dissected like a lab frog by a psychopath nerd.

I'm a psychopath, am I? Quoted for posterity, for anyone who claims FoosM doesn't throw out insults.. And yes, I'm an Apollo nerd, worn with pride.


And no Im not going to provide any proof since you didn't provide any proof that all cameras were taken back.

Nice. But tell me, what proof would be sufficient? I can show you the transcripts, even an audit of the stuff left on the Moon - but that would be from NASA (you know, the folks that ran the mission) so of course you wouldn't accept that.

So... YOU tell us what WOULD be sufficient.

And then, YOU need to apply that same rigour to YOUR evidence and show us the returned camera, and MORE TO THE POINT, feel free to explain RELEVANCE. Did they not return it because it contains oh.. pics of aliens?
Well, try to remember these cameras had film magazines - those are the things that came back, and they contained the pictures... And if one (or more) cameras did come back (and I accept there is a slim possibility), I'll even apologise, HAPPILY. Wouldn't you enjoy that?


lingering questions about the shielding capabilities of the CM & LM windows, helmet visors, and magazine cases for the film.

Questions long answered. If anyone ELSE raises the topic and has at least some passing knowledge, I'll re-address them. But it seems rather clear that you are the only person left beating the expired equine..

The only reason I am answering the earlier point is to EXPOSE YOUR TACTICS for all to see...



edit on 10-9-2010 by CHRLZ because: left a word out..



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 01:54 AM
link   
Admittedly this is veering to the side of the topic, but just to follow up on that 'hero' of JW's, Jack White and his partner in lies, James H. Fetzer - here's an email to them from a rather irate photographer who is NOT HAPPY about his image being misused by these Apollo deniers:
educationforum.ipbhost.com...

...Not only have you and Jack reproduced my image without consent, but you have also went as far as to publicly show it in an altered state... messing around with it just to show those Nike Air Max sneaker marks. May I again remind you that I take copyright violation very seriously and if anything of the sort ever happens again, you will know through my attorneys how much of a "real deal" I am....


So let's be clear about that event - two Apollo deniers, one of whom is often quoted by Jarrah White, tried to misuse an image in support of their lies. They deliberately ignored copyright, despite the image coming directly from a stock agency. DIRECTLY - in other words they didn't 'accidentally' find the image - so there is NO excuse. (And even if they had been unable to determine the source, it is absolutely DISHONEST to not declare that...)

But that's how Apollo deniers work. As we have seen, those making the anti-Apollo case here do exactly the same thing, and of course EVERY time they quote Jarrah White, they risk repeating his lies and misinformation. PROVEN lies and misinformation, like that which emanates from Jack White.

But it doesn't matter to them, they figure that if they keep repeating it, posting Youtube links, 'forgetting' points that have been debunked endlessly and re-raising them, that some of it will stick. And there is always a new gullible person ready to swallow the bait.

But there is a good side to this. You only have to glance at the stars (not) being placed on the denier's posts to determine whether the technique is actually working here...


As usual, I cordially invite any newcomer to the thread who has some science background or expertise in the topic, to chime in and ask questions or to posit their favorite issue. King Lizard, how about you - are you wading thru all those videos, and have you been particularly convinced by anything?

I'm always happy to debate sensibly with someone who has a knowledge of the issues, and does not have the attitude and history of the foos, ppks and dragnets...



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 03:56 AM
link   
135:05:39 Shepard: Go ahead.

135:05:40 Haise: Okay. They'd like for you to return your camera; so you don't have to bother removing the magazine from it. You can just put the whole camera in the ETB.

135:05:54 Shepard: Roger.

[Ed positions the MET at the MESA. Al joins him.]

135:05:56 Haise: Okay, and, I guess, so you don't get confused, that means we'll be bringing back both cameras.

135:06:05 Mitchell: Yeah, understand.

135:06:06 Shepard: (At the MESA) Okay. Al's camera's in, and magazine Lima-Lima has got a hundred and (pause) nine (frames exposed).

135:06:20 Mitchell: (Reading his checklist at the MET) Okay, Houston. I understand, now, (that) the contaminated sample under quad 3 is not to be taken.

135:06:30 Haise: That's affirm, Ed.

135:06:34 Mitchell: Okay. (Pause) Okay, I'm putting my camera in the ETB. (Long Pause as Ed removes his camera from his RCU bracket and then goes to Al's right to get to the ETB)

135:07:06 Haise: Okay, Ed; Houston.

135:07:07 Mitchell: (To Al) Let me slide on by you there just a minute. (Listens) Go ahead.

[Ed has gone behind Al, between him and the MESA to get to the left side of the MESA.]

135:07:13 Haise: I stand corrected. What they really wanted was to bring Al's camera back, instead of yours. So, we'll only be bringing one camera, the CDR's.

135:07:31 Mitchell: Okay, Houston.

135:07:37 Shepard: Ed, give me this, now. (Long Pause)

[One possible explanation for Houston's request is that Al has been having trouble with his camera handle and Houston wants to take a look at it.]

135:08:03 Mitchell: (Garbled) (At the MET) Fredo, correct me, now; Mag Kilo-Kilo has never been used. Is that correct?

RealVideo Clip (1 min 41 sec)

135:08:11 Haise: Stand by. (Pause)

history.nasa.gov...
------------------------

Anyone care to guess where this famous item would be?



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 186  187  188    190  191  192 >>

log in

join